Multicultural Ministry Matters

News flash: the Free Church of Scotland , one of the most significant Presbyterian denominations which split in the 1800s from the Church of Scotland , has permitted hymns and musical instruments in its churches. To be precise, they have given "liberty to its congregations to sing hymns and use instruments, if individual Kirk Sessions [Church Elder's Committee] so choose". Yes I know that sounds really lame, but bear with me while I explain why it's important. The Free Church is theologically conservative, but has also been historically energetic. They set up New College at the University of Edinburgh , which now hosts the School of Divinity - that is, the university's theological faculty. They sent missionaries to Africa, India (Calcutta, Bombay, Poona and Madras), Canada, Australia (!) and the Middle East. Their theology was probably the closest to the Old Princeton Presbyterianism of Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield . A lot (most? all?) of this energy has c...

Patrick Schreiner , Tom Schreiner's son, has posted his dad's responses to N. T. Wright and Frank Thielman .

John Dickson , director of the Centre for Public Christianity , is at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature . He posted the following summary of an exciting paper by German NT scholar Jorg Frey, in which, John says, "with one simple insight, he resolved a major 'problem' concerning the differences between John and the three other Gospels." He kindly let me re-post it: * * * * * Scholars have long pointed out that the central theme of Jesus' preaching, according to Matthew, Mark and Luke, was 'the kingdom of God'. It is everywhere in those Gospels. John virtually ignores that theme, preferring to speak of a nebulous 'eternal life' instead. This was seen as one serious against John's reliability. It does look like a serious problem. Prof Frey, after outlining the problem, pointed out that in John 3 in the Nicodemus story we find the first and only references (two of them) to 'kingdom of God' AND the first references to...

N. T. (Tom) Wright is famous (or infamous) for his view on justification, which many (myself included) take to be closer to a Catholic, synergistic view than the classic Protestant view - which we insist is the Biblical view. To simplify the debate (without, hopefully, distorting it too much): Wright says "justification" refers to the church - God accepts those who identify with Christ as the mediator of the covenant. The "Lutheran" or "traditional" response is that such a view makes our act of identification with Christ meritorious - it waters down the idea that justification is an entirely gracious act of God, springing entirely from his willed generosity. The "Lutheran" view of justification is that it is a judicial declaration which sets the sinner in a perfectly right relationship with God. God is therefore the active agent in justification; humans are merely passive recipients. Wright replies that the Holy Spirit is active in empowering th...

In our previous post , we saw that Christ restores our sexuality in the present, by reaffirming heterosexual marriage, and modelling contentment and self-control. In the future, our sexuality will be transcended in God’s new creation. The restoration of our sexuality, while real, will always be incomplete in the present - as will be all aspects of our human restoration. The Bible looks forward to a new creation, a new universe, where everything that is corrupt and painful will pass away, and we will only ever enjoy life and peace and safety. Only in this new creation will the effects of sin – of our willed rejection of God – be finally dealt with, and our human wholeness completely restored. In this new creation, our sexuality will not just be restored, it will be transcended. The bible talks about God’s relationship with his people as a bride and bridegroom. In one of the final chapters of the bible, the Apostle John sees this vision - Revelation 21:2, 3: 2 I saw the Holy City, the ne...

In our last post , we saw that Christ restores our sexuality - but we yet await a final restoration. In the present, sexual restoration involves three things: (1) the normativity of heterosexual marriage; (2) contentment; and (3) self control. We have already seen Jesus validate marriage in Matt 19. Committed heterosexual marriage remains the context wherein to enjoy sex. If sexual partners are committed to each other for life, then sex is part of that shared life together. It is not just a one-night stand. We can encourage them to conduct their sexuality in such a way as to serve each other, and give each other the best possible sexual experience, over their whole life. The normativity of sex within marriage calls for sexual contentment , both within and outside marriage. Life with a regular sexual partner, married or not, still involves unmet sexual desires. Constant sexual satisfaction is a myth – it only happens in the movies. So, within marriage, we are called to contentment – to ...

In our last post , we saw how our rejection of God - sin - affects us all, including our sexuality. Because we’re all broken people, we need someone to fix us from the outside. Jesus forgives us for rejecting God. And, he restores us to human wholeness. This is what he achieved in his cross and resurrection. Think of Jesus’ death on the cross as the ultimate sickness – sickness to death. And think of his resurrection as the ultimate healing – so healthy that he can never die again. He takes the consequences we deserve, so we can enjoy the life God always planned for us. So, Christians are always hopeful. It doesn’t matter how bad a situation is, how much someone’s failed themselves, or failed anyone else – they can be restored by Jesus. We can always say to anyone: hang in there; don’t give up; there is hope. This restoration is real, but in this life, partial. We'll explore this more over the next few posts.